Comparing the effects of different dynamic sitting strategies in wheelchair seating on lumbar-pelvic angle

Table 3 Range of motion in lumbar angle form dynamic change

		P value of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test
DSSs	LRM (Degree)	LPDS	BRDS	FUDS	LBDS	LFDS	BFDS
LPDS	13.28 ± 6.74
BRDS	8.82 ± 4.24	0.033
FUDS	1.49 ± 2.47	<0.001	<0.001
LBDS	29.48 ± 8.83	0.001	<0.001	<0.001
LFDS	13.54 ± 6.82	0.940	0.008	<0.001	0.001
BFDS	8.52 ± 3.72	0.005	0.478	<0.001	<0.001	0.004
LBFDS	28.78 ± 8.46	0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.305	0.001	<0.001
P value of the Friedman test				<0.001

Comparison of mean lumbar range of motion (LRM) form dynamic change across 7 dynamic sitting strategies (DSSs), which include Lumbar Prominent Dynamic Sitting (LPDS), Back Reclined Dynamic Sitting (BRDS), Femur Upward Dynamic Sitting (FUDS), Lumbar Prominent with Back Reclined Dynamic Sitting (LBDS), Lumbar Prominent with Femur Upward Dynamic Sitting (LFDS), Back Reclined with Femur Upward Dynamic Sitting (BFDS), and Lumbar Prominent with Back Reclined with Femur Upward Dynamic Sitting (LBFDS). Each LRM parameter is given as the averaging value when two dynamic alteration process over a sitting trial. Values are mean ± standard deviation (N = 20)

ISSN: 1471-2474